K. Ravindra Kumar vs Joint Collectori,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3112 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                      AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                   WRIT APPEAL No.505 of 2010

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the

appellants.

       Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader

for Revenue for the official respondents.

2. This intra court appeal takes an exception to the

order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.9999 of 2010, by which the writ petition

preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellants are legal heirs of one

Mr. Veera Chary. It was averred in the writ petition that

one Mr. Kammari Radhaiah, namely the grandfather of

appellant No.1, was in possession of the land measuring

Ac.0.22 guntas of Survey No.11 of Raidurg Navakhasla

Village. The successor in title of respondent Nos.4 to 10

filed an application under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as, "the Act") for grant of occupancy rights

certificate (ORC). The Inams Tribunal by an order dated

09.05.1995 issued ORC in favour of one Mr. Ramesh

Pershad and in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 10. The

appellants challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal

under Section 24 of the Act, which was dismissed by the

appellate authority by an order dated 11.03.2010. The

appellants thereupon challenged the order dated

11.03.2010 passed by the Joint Collector in the writ

petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated

28.04.2010 has dismissed the writ petition.

4. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that

the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was not

a speaking order. It is also submitted that the compromise

recorded in O.S.No.174 of 1982 was denied by the

appellants. It is contended that the orders passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint Collector were per

se illegal. However, the learned Single Judge failed to

appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader

supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and perused the record.

8. The appellate authority has recorded a finding that as

per the extract of pahani for the year 1973-1974,

Mr. Kammari Radhaiah and Mr. Suraj Bhan were shown in

possession of patta land. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional

Officer issued ORC in favour of Mr. Ramesh Pershad and

his legal representatives, namely the unofficial respondents

in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has noticed that

even though the appellants claim to be successors of

Mr. Kammari Radhaiah, but no material was placed by

them on record before the learned Single Judge. The

learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the challenge at

the instance of the appellants to the order passed by the

appellate authority under the Act cannot be entertained.

The learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ

petition.

9. In the absence of any material on record to show that

the appellants are the legal representatives of Mr. Kammari

Radhaiah, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed

the writ petition. We do not find any ground to differ with

the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge.

10. In the result, the writ appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date: 12.10.2023 Myk/vs